Traditionalist and sedevacantists websites have a lot of matter which is obsolete and needs to be removed.Since they have made the same mistake as the present magisterium.Premises and conclusions were wrong.

Here is some of the relativism being taught by the Vatican Curia of liberals.

1.They assume that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance refer to known cases instead of just being hypothetical and invisible. So this gives them an opportunity to eliminate the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This is a doctrinal change.

It is pastorally enforced.If a Catholic Religious Superior affirms the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS, this means he or she is not assuming the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance refer, to only hypothetical cases.The religious will be suspended or penalised. A priest can be denied incardination.This could be the reason why the blogger Fr.John Zuhlsdorf does not affirm the dogma EENS.He does not criticize inter-marriage with Jews.It is not adultery for him.Nor does he say that all Jews and Orthodox Christians are on the way to Hell according to the dogma EENS and Vatican Council II.Since this is expected of him by the present magisterium.If a priest says he accepts the baptism of desire as it was taught by the past popes and saints it is not enough.It has to be a visible- for- us- baptism of desire.This is the ruse of the liberal theologians.This is the reasoning of the traditionalists too.

2.Since there is known salvation outside the Church for the two popes Vatican Council II has to be interpreted as a rupture with Tradition.This is accepted in principle by the Vatican Curia.

It is also enforced in the Church.If a cardinal or parish priest would say truthfully that in Vatican Council II there are no exceptions mentioned to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS, he will be penalised. If he would say that LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer to hypothetical cases he would get a cautionary phone call from one of the auxiliary bishops in Rome, who is following the Jewish Left guidelines for the Catholic Church.This is the reasoning of the traditionalists too.

I interpret Vatican Council II in harmony with 'the rigorist interpretation' of the dogma EENS.For me there is no hermeneutic of rupture with Feeneyite EENS.

The cardinals and priests however have to maintain the official deception on Vatican Council II.

3.Since there is no known salvation outside the Church there is no objective basis for the New Theology of Rahner, Kung,Ratzinger and Kasper. Yet priests at the pontifical universities have to teach Rahnerian new theology on salvation.It is made obligatory.This is the reasoning at Ecclesiology being taught at the SSPX seminary in Econe, Switzerland.Also catechists and religion teachers have to accept the new theology,based on an irrational premise, which is there in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1995).It is there in CCC 1257 and 846 etc.It is also with this irrational new theology, the Catechism of the Catholic Church interprets Vatican Council II.So there is the hermeutic of rupture and it is official and 'magisterial'.This is how the traditionalists also interpret Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church when there is a choice.

This is human error and it cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit.How can a new theology be created on a false philosophy ? The false reasoning can even be detected by a non Catholic.1

The New York Times has interpreted Vatican Council II with the common philosophical mistake and no one in the Catholic Church objects- not even Michael Voris and Church Militiant TV 1

This is because the present magisterium has made the same error.The magisterium is teaching relativism and heresy with reference to Vatican Council II.So it condones this leftist interpretation of the Council .

The two popes will not say that Vatican Council II is in harmony with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) as it was known to the 16th century missionaries.Instead they will assume that hypothetical cases are objective exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This is also the position of the traditionalists and sedevacantists and CMTV.LG 16 is not a hypothetical case but a 'practical exception' to the dogma EENS.

Many in the Church cannot object since it is the magisterium which is enforcing relativism, indifference and heresy.Those who oppose this heresy would be penalised by the liberal, left magisterium at the Vatican.2

-Lionel Andrades

1

Contrary to the Second Vatican Council’s endorsement of interreligious dialogue, Mr. Voris views Islam as “entirely different” from Christianity and portrays Judaism in outdated terminology that experts in Catholic-Jewish relations consider anti-Semitic. (The Trump campaign was accused at times of indulging in and even disseminating anti-Jewish rhetoric and imagery.)- Samuel G.FreedmanDEC. 30, 2016 1‘Church Militant’ Theology Is Put to New, and Politicized, Use